<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (6) TMI 167 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156985</link>
    <description>Soap manufactured by a unit recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission was treated as eligible for exemption under S.R.O. No. 287/64, because the notification used the expression &quot;manufactured and/or sold&quot; by recognised institutions or persons. That wording was read to cover three categories: goods manufactured by a recognised body, goods sold by it, and goods both manufactured and sold by it; it could not be narrowed by substituting &quot;and&quot; for &quot;and/or&quot;. A later objection based on the period of recognition was not considered, as it was a factual plea raised for the first time after the matter had passed through the lower authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:37:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (6) TMI 167 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156985</link>
      <description>Soap manufactured by a unit recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission was treated as eligible for exemption under S.R.O. No. 287/64, because the notification used the expression &quot;manufactured and/or sold&quot; by recognised institutions or persons. That wording was read to cover three categories: goods manufactured by a recognised body, goods sold by it, and goods both manufactured and sold by it; it could not be narrowed by substituting &quot;and&quot; for &quot;and/or&quot;. A later objection based on the period of recognition was not considered, as it was a factual plea raised for the first time after the matter had passed through the lower authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>